Apple demands Telegram remove posts related to Belarus protests, controversy ensues
Apple is embroiled in yet another App Store controversy after it demanded that Telegram remove content related to the ongoing political scandal in Belarus.
Outlined by Telegram CEO Pavel Durov in a post to his own platform, the controversy lies not only in what Apple requested, but also how it structured the demand under App Store guidelines.
On Oct. 8, Durov said Apple requested Telegram shut down three content channels run by pro-democracy protestors. Owners of the channels used Telegram's public forum feature to disseminate information on resistance efforts targeting Belarusian President Aleksandr G. Lukashenko, who is in a standoff with opponents after running a rigged election in September.
Uprisings in the country have been met with violence and Lukashenko this week threatened to use lethal weapons against protestors. The Belarusian president is currently facing down the specter of European Union sanctions if he does not agree to new elections, according to The New York Times.
Apple waded into the fray by declaring certain posts in violation of App Store rules. The company was concerned that publishing the personal information of law enforcement officials could incite violence, Durov said.
"I think this situation is not black and white and would rather leave the channels be, but typically Apple doesn't offer much choice for apps like Telegram in such situations," Durov wrote in a post dated Oct. 8. "Unfortunately, I assume these channels will end up getting blocked on iOS, but remain available on other platforms."
Apple later told Gazeta that it did not want to close the channels, but instead sought the removal of specific posts "disclosing personal information." Durov countered, saying the three accounts in question "consist entirely of personal information of violent oppressors and those who helped rig the elections," concluding that the removal of offending posts effectively equates to shutting down those channels.
As noted by Daring Fireball's John Gruber on Wednesday, the Telegram controversy goes beyond App Store rules and raises questions as to how Apple enforces developer regulations.
In a Telegram post on Oct. 9, Durov points to policies that disallow developers from explaining App Store guidelines to customers.
"Previously, when removing posts at Apple's request, Telegram replaced those posts with a notice that cited the exact rule limiting such content for iOS users," he wrote. "However, Apple reached out to us a while ago and said our app is not allowed to show users such notices because they were "irrelevant"." (Emphasis in original)
Apple caught flak for leveling identical restrictions on Facebook in August. At the time, the social network wanted to issue a transparency notice informing users that it would not be able to roll out a paid event tool on iOS due to the App Store's customary 30% fee. Apple rejected the announcement as "irrelevant."
"I strongly disagree with Apple's definition of "irrelevant". I think the reason certain content was censored or why the price is 30% higher is the opposite of irrelevant," Durov said.
Telegram has butted heads with Apple in the past. In 2018, the app was temporarily banned from the App Store for hosting child pornography. More recently, Durov in July filed an antitrust complaint with the European Commission over App Store fees and platform control.
Outlined by Telegram CEO Pavel Durov in a post to his own platform, the controversy lies not only in what Apple requested, but also how it structured the demand under App Store guidelines.
On Oct. 8, Durov said Apple requested Telegram shut down three content channels run by pro-democracy protestors. Owners of the channels used Telegram's public forum feature to disseminate information on resistance efforts targeting Belarusian President Aleksandr G. Lukashenko, who is in a standoff with opponents after running a rigged election in September.
Uprisings in the country have been met with violence and Lukashenko this week threatened to use lethal weapons against protestors. The Belarusian president is currently facing down the specter of European Union sanctions if he does not agree to new elections, according to The New York Times.
Apple waded into the fray by declaring certain posts in violation of App Store rules. The company was concerned that publishing the personal information of law enforcement officials could incite violence, Durov said.
"I think this situation is not black and white and would rather leave the channels be, but typically Apple doesn't offer much choice for apps like Telegram in such situations," Durov wrote in a post dated Oct. 8. "Unfortunately, I assume these channels will end up getting blocked on iOS, but remain available on other platforms."
Apple later told Gazeta that it did not want to close the channels, but instead sought the removal of specific posts "disclosing personal information." Durov countered, saying the three accounts in question "consist entirely of personal information of violent oppressors and those who helped rig the elections," concluding that the removal of offending posts effectively equates to shutting down those channels.
As noted by Daring Fireball's John Gruber on Wednesday, the Telegram controversy goes beyond App Store rules and raises questions as to how Apple enforces developer regulations.
In a Telegram post on Oct. 9, Durov points to policies that disallow developers from explaining App Store guidelines to customers.
"Previously, when removing posts at Apple's request, Telegram replaced those posts with a notice that cited the exact rule limiting such content for iOS users," he wrote. "However, Apple reached out to us a while ago and said our app is not allowed to show users such notices because they were "irrelevant"." (Emphasis in original)
Apple caught flak for leveling identical restrictions on Facebook in August. At the time, the social network wanted to issue a transparency notice informing users that it would not be able to roll out a paid event tool on iOS due to the App Store's customary 30% fee. Apple rejected the announcement as "irrelevant."
"I strongly disagree with Apple's definition of "irrelevant". I think the reason certain content was censored or why the price is 30% higher is the opposite of irrelevant," Durov said.
Telegram has butted heads with Apple in the past. In 2018, the app was temporarily banned from the App Store for hosting child pornography. More recently, Durov in July filed an antitrust complaint with the European Commission over App Store fees and platform control.
Comments
Does it really have to be about gay rights before Tim
Cook smells the coffee?
🤮
Apple has no right to banish Telegram over contents, particularly not over contents that could be accessed via its own Safari browser!
There’s nothing inherent about Telegram pertinent to the information posted, other than Telegram being an uncensored communications platform that anyone can use to transmit whatever information they want to transmit.
What information Party A transmits to Party B using a tool C provided by party D that happens to be distributed by party E’s (Apple) using their platform F (AppStore), is utterly irrelevant.
Is Safari going to include a filter getting rid of information any arbitrarily authoritarian government anywhere objects to?
If not, why does Apple interfere with Telegram?
if Russia, China, Belarus, and North Korea object to Telegram, and Apple really wants to be a commercial whore, then remove the app from those countries AppStores, but don’t pretend the App is in violation of anything other than Apple’s desire to maximize profits in regions with authoritarian governments.
Stop preaching about how privacy is at the core of Apple’s philosophy. Nobody needs privacy for dick pictures, we need privacy to overthrow oppressive governments!
Genentech
Compensation Committee
The Boeing Company
of the United States
Nominating Committee
Nominating Committee
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Audit Committee
https://investor.apple.com/leadership-and-governance/default.aspx <--
The problem is the board of directors didn't read the last word in that decree: "ethics"... all they saw was "interests of shareholders" and "business success". These are contradictory criteria, and you know which one wins.
May I remind people that normally I am one of Apple's biggest supporters on this website, but I'm not a supporter when it comes to their ethics. Of course, I can't see ethics in most other companies either, so Apple is just run-of-the-mill on ethics.
On the other hand, it sounds like Apple is insisting that channels that are used exclusively to publish the personal information (presumably addresses and schedules?) of individuals. ["Durov countered, saying the three accounts in question "consist entirely of personal information of violent oppressors and those who helped rig the elections," concluding that the removal of offending posts effectively equates to shutting down those channels."] If there is a valid objection for interfering with speech, that's a pretty good reason. In the US this past week there was talk about a group kidnapping and executing a midwestern governor. This sounds like the same sort of information sharing. I doubt they are sharing this information to mail birthday cards.
Again, I don't see why Apple is involved. I don't understand why Apple thinks this violates its rules. But perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to assume that Apple is appeasing dictators and crushing democracy with these requests. Hopefully they would have made the same move if it were the Belarusian government posting the personal information of protesters using the Telegram app.
https://www.gazeta.ru/tech/news/2020/10/09/n_15056407.shtml
In other words, this wasn't about the App Store at all. Someone complained to Apple that their personal information was available via this app without their consent and Apple reached out to the creator of the App to seek deletion of this information. Seems pretty reasonable and harmless--unless the Apple representative included an "or else" that isn't acknowledged by Apple.
Perhaps we should be careful to take every tweet or complaint at face value. Many times people completely mischaracterize what happened to make their case more compelling.
Would you be happy if the same thing happened in America? (I assume you are American). The equivalent in America would be for Apple to shut down an app which people were using to "dox" American politicians, let's say it was the FaceBook app, then telling the FaceBook developer that if Facebook told their customers WHY their apps were rejected, they would never be allowed to submit apps again. You're defending that? You're happy with Apple blocking American developers who criticize Apple or the government (or one political party) even if such behavior isn't against Apple's stated rules?
Sorry Durov, but you're wrong on all counts.
Removing offending posts does not equate to shutting down channels. It's actually just removing the posts. You can post other stuff on the channel because … y'know … it hasn't been shut down.
Secondly, if you're deciding who should be outed in order that those people should be attacked by random protestors, then I'm afraid you're as bad as the people you're trying to take down.
And thirdly, the folk here who are braying that Apple is supporting a vile regime would be the same people who would be braying that it is Apple's fault that a wrongly-named individual was killed by a mob.
I suppose that Apple should also have been dinged for forcing the platform to take down child pornography; I'm sure that must be against someone's idea of freedom of speech somewhere …
There are over 2M apps in the App Store. Any of you want to enforce anything on 2M developers AND allow those developers to bitch on Apple's platform or elsewhere when they feel negative?
Businesses CAN'T run that way. Ask Walmart, Amazon, Facebook, Google, IBM, Oracle.
Why is this any of Apple's business?
AFAIK the posts don't go through Apple's servers. It is a tool that, once the app is sold, has no contact with Apple or the AppStore. Others have compared it to Safari. You can do things with Safari that Apple would not approve of. Same goes for Twitter and Mail. Netflix has content that would not pass muster if pitched to AppleTV+. Apple doesn't hassle them because all of the content is outside of Apple's system.
Why is Telegram any different?
This reminds me of when Apple landed on Tumblr because of some content they did not like. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.
Apple needs to stop trying to micromanage other people's platforms. They are only shooting themselves in the foot.